This is the next in a series of posts about what the new Republican majority in Congress should do in January.
Another area for action by the GOP majority is gaining some control of spending. The government is already funded until the end of September with the exception of Homeland Security. That is not an excuse for Congress to ignore federal spending. Quite the opposite is true. Congress should take advantage of the nine month period until new spending bills are due to use the committee process to develop individual authorization measures for each of the federal departments and agencies. The relevant committee should look at how the programs covered by its particular department have been working. Programs that no longer function should be closed out while those which have worked well should be increased. The discussion in Washington can no longer be left at the idiotic level that the Democrats used where more spending was always better and domestic spending always "helped" those less fortunate. Republicans need to start making the point that programs that work are fine, but those that fail need to go. They also need to make clear that revamping existing programs to function better can do much more for the country than simply creating yet another program to add to the mix.
The oft cited example for this is the myriad of federal job training programs. There are well over 100 different federal programs for job training. There may well be a reason to have more than one program so that the focus can be different (e.g., one program to train veterans, one to train computer technicians, etc.). There is no possible reason to have over 100 different programs, though. Just think how much of the money spent by the federal government on these programs is going to pay for duplicative overhead rather than job training. Do we really need to employ 110 heads of programs, a like number of chief financial officers, a like number of press spokesmen, etc? If the point of the programs is to train unemployed workers, shouldn't the money actually go for that purpose?
When the debate is on the question of "more" spending or "less" spending, the media spins it into the GOP wanting to cut help to the poor while the Democrats want to help the poor. That story, however, is neither real nor even close to the truth. The debate should be on improving what government does so that it works. Certainly for some programs the answer is to close them down. Nevertheless, the focus should be program by program and not just generalities.
If each department is reviewed and then has its budget adjusted so that the waste and fraud and unworkable programs are cut while those that function well are increased, it will be a much different debate which ought to end with a more rational budget and government.
Another area for action by the GOP majority is gaining some control of spending. The government is already funded until the end of September with the exception of Homeland Security. That is not an excuse for Congress to ignore federal spending. Quite the opposite is true. Congress should take advantage of the nine month period until new spending bills are due to use the committee process to develop individual authorization measures for each of the federal departments and agencies. The relevant committee should look at how the programs covered by its particular department have been working. Programs that no longer function should be closed out while those which have worked well should be increased. The discussion in Washington can no longer be left at the idiotic level that the Democrats used where more spending was always better and domestic spending always "helped" those less fortunate. Republicans need to start making the point that programs that work are fine, but those that fail need to go. They also need to make clear that revamping existing programs to function better can do much more for the country than simply creating yet another program to add to the mix.
The oft cited example for this is the myriad of federal job training programs. There are well over 100 different federal programs for job training. There may well be a reason to have more than one program so that the focus can be different (e.g., one program to train veterans, one to train computer technicians, etc.). There is no possible reason to have over 100 different programs, though. Just think how much of the money spent by the federal government on these programs is going to pay for duplicative overhead rather than job training. Do we really need to employ 110 heads of programs, a like number of chief financial officers, a like number of press spokesmen, etc? If the point of the programs is to train unemployed workers, shouldn't the money actually go for that purpose?
When the debate is on the question of "more" spending or "less" spending, the media spins it into the GOP wanting to cut help to the poor while the Democrats want to help the poor. That story, however, is neither real nor even close to the truth. The debate should be on improving what government does so that it works. Certainly for some programs the answer is to close them down. Nevertheless, the focus should be program by program and not just generalities.
If each department is reviewed and then has its budget adjusted so that the waste and fraud and unworkable programs are cut while those that function well are increased, it will be a much different debate which ought to end with a more rational budget and government.
No comments:
Post a Comment